My Blog's Worth

Google Stats

Thursday, April 03, 2008

WASHINGTON - Sen. Barack Obama, second to none in the race for campaign cash, raised more than $40 million in March and boosted his vast network of donors to nearly 1.3 million, the campaign announced Thursday.

The amount is less than the record $55 million he raised in February, but still a sizable amount that sustains his place as the fundraising leader among all presidential candidates. The money gives him a substantial financial advantage over Democratic rival Hillary Rodham Clinton as they compete for votes heading into the April 22 Pennsylvania primary.

Clinton is expected to have raised about $20 million in March, but her campaign has not announced any totals. Details of their March fundraising will be made public in official reports filed with the Federal Election Commission April 20.

The Obama campaign said it attracted more than 218,000 first-time donors in March.

"Many of our contributors are volunteering for the campaign, making our campaign the largest grass-roots army in recent political history," campaign manager David Plouffe said.

Obama has been the candidate most successful at blending high dollar donors with small contributions by deft use of the Internet. He has had the highest number of donors contributing $200 or less.

"We knew that he was going to outraise us," Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson said. "He has outraised us over the last several months."

Wolfson said the campaign will have the resources they need to compete and be successful in the upcoming primaries. He pointed to Clinton's base of support from online fundraising, saying she had raised about $1 million online on March 31.

Obama's announcement comes as both Democrats return to a popular financial wellhead, raising money in California to help finance a heavy stretch of spending in April. With their race for the Democratic nomination showing no signs of ending, tapping donors for more cash has new urgency.

Obama has scheduled fundraisers at the homes of four different financial backers Sunday afternoon and evening in northern California. Clinton attended one fundraiser Wednesday in Silicon Valley, and had three planned for Thursday — in San Francisco, Pasadena and Los Angeles.

Most of the events are for donors giving the $2,300 maximum allowed by law.

Obama raised a record $55 million in February; Clinton raised $34.5 million.

Though the New York senator trails Obama in delegates needed for the nomination, Clinton advisers and fundraisers said her donors remain enthusiastic. But her fundraisers also say she relied too much on large donors early in the cycle.

"That pool is reduced," said Larry Stone, a Clinton fundraiser in Silicon Valley who also is the Santa Clara County assessor. "Hillary came really late to the game in effective fundraising on the Internet as compared to Barack Obama ... Many of the solid enthusiastic Clinton supporters were maxed out."

But Stone added: "A big boon to the fundraising has been these appeals for her to withdraw. It makes supporters angry, especially women."

Clinton aides said Wednesday that they anticipate Obama will outspend her by 2-to-1 in Pennsylvania. In the first round of campaign ads, Obama spent about $2 million to Clinton's $450,000, according to data compiled by TNS Media Intelligence/Campaign Media Analysis Group, which tracks political ads. Obama is also already airing ads in Indiana and North Carolina, which won't hold primaries until next month.

Clinton entered March with $11.5 million to spend in the primary compared to $30.5 million for Obama. Moreover, Clinton owed $8.7 million to several campaign vendors at the end of February. A spot check by The Associated Press of several vendors found many were paid last month, after the March 4 primaries in Ohio and Texas. The cost of those two contests, together with efforts to reduce campaign debt, have kept fundraising a priority for her campaign.

In the middle of her victory speech after the Ohio and Texas primaries this month, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton paused to reel off the Web address for her campaign.

“Go to www.HillaryClinton.com,” she said, drawing applause and cheers from her throngs of supporters. “This is your campaign and your moment, and I need your support.”

The prominent mention of her Web site was intentional, part of the Clinton campaign’s recent efforts to keep pace with Senator Barack Obama’s fund-raising juggernaut. The campaign has nearly doubled the volume of her e-mail solicitations, showcased her Web site more at events and intensified online advertisements asking for small contributions.

To good effect. Although Mr. Obama has continued to raise significantly more money than Mrs. Clinton, largely because of contributions gushing in over the Internet, she has managed to stay competitive through a surprising surge of her own online.

Mrs. Clinton’s rebound from a dismal fund-raising performance in January, in which she raised $14 million compared with Mr. Obama’s $36 million and was forced to lend her campaign $5 million, is a significant underlying story line driving the race at this point.

Both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama released their fund-raising numbers for February late Thursday to the Federal Election Commission, with Mr. Obama raising $55 million and Mrs. Clinton bringing in $35 million.

While far less than what Mr. Obama raised, which included more than $45 million collected over the Internet, and despite the fact that she finished the month with $8.7 million in unpaid bills, Mrs. Clinton’s total was crucial to her popular vote victories in Texas and Ohio on March 4.

It was driven not by the affluent donor network that her campaign has been known for but by about $30 million in Internet contributions that arrived mostly in small-dollar increments. Her contributions over all averaged just more than $100 in February.

Mrs. Clinton’s advisers struggle to explain fully her online surge, which has continued into March, saying it was unexpected to them, as well. In January, the campaign brought in $7 million online, a monthly record for Mrs. Clinton but a pittance compared with the $28 million Mr. Obama raised online. Previously, Mrs. Clinton’s best quarter online came from July 1 to Sept. 30, 2007, when she raised $8 million.

The uptick in Internet contributions could not have come at a better time for Mrs. Clinton. Many of her high-dollar donors have reached their contribution limits of $4,600, diminishing the importance of the powerful money machine created by her husband and other top Democratic supporters.

But in a sign of just how much the center of gravity has shifted for Mrs. Clinton’s fund-raising apparatus, about half of the contributions in February were less than $200; in the last quarter of 2007, less than 20 percent of her contributions came in those smaller increments. Meanwhile, about 55 percent of Mr. Obama’s contributions in February were less than $200, compared with 45 percent in the last quarter of 2007.

Many of Mrs. Clinton’s advisers had privately been resigned to ceding the Internet to Mr. Obama, pointing to demographic differences between their supporters, which they said left her at a profound disadvantage.

A survey in late December by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that 31 percent of Obama supporters said the Internet was their main source of news, compared with 20 percent of Clinton supporters.

The disparity is driven by the fact that Mr. Obama’s supporters tend to be younger and wealthier than Mrs. Clinton’s, said Michael Dimock, an associate director at the center.

For instance, a Facebook group, One Million Strong for Barack, has more than 500,000 members. A similar group for Mrs. Clinton has fewer than 25,000. In contrast, the Facebook group One Million Strong AGAINST Hillary counts more than 948,000 members.

“Our challenge from the start of the campaign has been to bring more of Senator Clinton’s supporters to the Web,” said Peter Daou, Mrs. Clinton’s Internet director.

Online campaigning experts, however, put much of the onus on the campaigns themselves, crediting the Obama campaign with doing a better job of understanding the ethos of the Internet.

“It’s my sense from everything I’ve checked, from the ads to the Web sites to the videos, that the Obama campaign is much Net savvier than the Clinton campaign,” said Michael Cornfield, a professor at George Washington University who specializes in new media in politics.

Mr. Daou, however, argued that the Clinton campaign had taken advantage of many of the same Internet tools as the Obama campaign but had simply encountered a demographic divide.

Mr. Daou said the campaign had tried to use the Internet in a way that was befitting of Mrs. Clinton’s personality and her specific needs, concentrating, for example, on policy rollouts, or doing video messages from her and online public forum-style meetings. He attributed her online surge, in part, to those earlier efforts to establish a rapport with supporters.

Nevertheless, the campaign has taken steps to improve its results online. In February, the campaign sent out 20 queries to its list of national subscribers, roughly split between direct requests for money and softer sells that asked for volunteers or thanked people for their support. In January, the campaign sent out 13 such e-mail messages.

In comparison, a rough count of e-mail solicitations from the Obama campaign found about 20 solicitation e-mail messages sent in January and a similar number in February, also roughly split between direct queries for donations and other e-mail messages intended to establish a rapport with supporters.

The Clinton campaign also turned over her Web page almost entirely to fund-raising in February and has sponsored a variety of online fund-raising drives. It has also been experimenting with new ploys, including transforming the sign-on page to her Web site into a donation page for 72 hours recently, an effort that netted $1.6 million.

But Clinton advisers say it was news about Mrs. Clinton’s loan to her campaign that prompted a groundswell of grass-roots support.

News of the loan broke on the morning of Feb. 6. Online donations had already been coming in at a steady clip after the crush of states voted on Feb. 5. They began to spike that afternoon and surged the next day. In the end, the campaign collected about $4 million on Feb. 6 and slightly more than that on Feb. 7, the campaign’s two best days ever online.

Robin Purnell, 54, who earns $14 an hour working at an insurance agency in Gary, Ind., has long been a supporter of Mrs. Clinton but had not donated to her campaign. After learning about Mrs. Clinton’s loan last month, she decided to give $25.

“That’s kind of when it dawned on me,” Ms. Purnell said. “Maybe we need to do more than get the word out.”

Since then, Ms. Purnell has given several more times, for a total of about $175. To save money for her donations, Ms. Purnell said she often skipped lunch or avoided eating out. “Everybody’s got to make sacrifices,” she said.

Sunday, March 09, 2008

By Jill Lawrence, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON

The score on Democratic presidential caucuses this nomination season could hardly be more lopsided: Barack Obama 11, Hillary Rodham Clinton 2, New Mexico pending. And a lot of those Obama wins were landslides.

Obama's big win Sunday in Maine, a state where demographics and other indicators suggested Clinton would do well, begs an answer to the question: Why doesn't Clinton win caucuses?

Clinton and her allies point to the nature of a caucus. Blue-collar and shift workers, they say, don't have the time or flexibility to show up at a certain time and stay for a couple of hours. If you're out of town, you're out of luck. Ditto if you can't get a babysitter.

Political analysts say passion and organization are key to caucus wins and Obama has them in greater measure. "He's got both an army of campaign workers and an operatic presentation" that excites people, says Lawrence Jacobs, director of the Center for the Study of Politics and Governance at the University of Minnesota. "It's a very potent, very unusual combination."

Clinton has targeted early and large states. On Super Tuesday, she focused on and won New York, New Jersey, California and Massachusetts.

David Plouffe, Obama's campaign manager, said Obama has tried to compete in every contest "in pursuit of delegates." He said that has meant TV ads in New York and California, two states Obama never expected to win, and taking caucus states "very seriously."

Clinton strategist Mark Penn said the campaign invested where returns would be greatest. "Our funds at the time were limited. We put them into the Super Tuesday states that were successful," he said, and that in turn has sparked new contributions.

Caucuses still to come this year are Hawaii on Feb. 19, Wyoming on March 8 and Puerto Rico on June 7. Texas holds a primary March 4, then awards one-third of its delegates at evening caucuses open to people who voted.

So far, Clinton has won American Samoa and Nevada. Obama has won Iowa, Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, North Dakota, Nebraska, Washington state, the Virgin Islands and Maine. Six contests on Super Tuesday helped keep up with Clinton on delegates.

A closer look at three caucus states:

"Idaho. John Foster, executive director of the state Democratic Party, said the largest factor in Obama's 80%-17% win was a self-starting group of "very passionate volunteers" who became active last spring and later were augmented by a part-time paid campaign staffer.

The Clinton effort came together a month before the Feb. 5 caucus, Foster said. "They were certainly aware of what was happening here. But strategically they didn't invest a lot here."

The upshot, he said, was a team of "establishment party folks" up against "a lot of young new people who were extremely motivated and just worked themselves ragged for six months."

"Washington state. Kelly Steele, a spokesman for the state Democratic Party, described a similar scenario of Obama fans organizing "organically" and later supplemented by paid staff. Clinton was backed by both U.S. senators from Washington and featured them in TV ads. She did three events in the state while Obama did only one.

Whether it was a primary or caucus, Steele said, "Obama simply had more support." A SurveyUSA poll of Washington released Friday, the day before the caucus, showed Obama at 50%, Clinton at 45%. Obama won easily, 68%-31%.

"Minnesota. Jacobs said Clinton made a "triage" decision not to spend much. "She wasn't running ads. She didn't have much of a paid staff," he said.

A poll by Jacobs' center and Minnesota Public Radio, released five days before Super Tuesday, showed Clinton leading Obama 40%-33%, within the poll's margin of error. Two days later, Obama drew 20,000 people to a rally in Minneapolis.

Jacobs said they emerged "supercharged, talked up the caucuses to their friends, and Obama's ground troops made sure everyone got to the right place." The result: 66% for Obama, 32% for Clinton. She is running, Jacobs said, against a "phenomenon."

Saturday, March 08, 2008

I am outraged by the recent Air Force decision to award the KC-X Next Generation Air-fueling Tanker contract to a foreign competitor in the name of the Northrop Grumman/European Aeronautic Defence and Space Team.

An American tanker should be built by an American company with American workers. America must not outsource its national security. This decision shockingly creates French jobs in place of Kansas jobs. This is unacceptable.

I believe that the Tanker Competition was unfair and poorly evaluated, and if not overturned will negatively impact the United States for generations.

If allowed to stand, this contract award to a foreign company will:

1) Hurt American workers by the loss of U.S. jobs; 2) Outsource an essential military asset to Europe; 3) Force the United States to be dependent upon Europe for our national defense; 4) Result in an inferior tanker for the United States Air Force; and 5) Result in the US being more vulnerable at a time when we must be less vulnerable

I am urging the Air Force to reverse this dangerous decision to award the KC-X Tanker contract to the Northrop Grumman/European Aeronautic Defence and Space Team.

I invite you to take the following survey.

Todd Tiahrt Member of Congress

Survey results as of 5:55 p.m. (CST) 3-7-0844,661 -- outraged and oppose the Air Force tanker decision 3,445 -- support the Air Force tanker decision 69 -- no opinion about the Air Force tanker decision

How do you feel about the Tanker decision? Please register your opinion, and I will keep you informed and up-to-date about tanker news. VOICE YOUR OPINION AND HELP STOP THE OUTSOURCING OF AMERICAN JOBS.

US lawmakers have reacted angrily after the US military awarded a 35-billion-dollar aircraft deal to Europe's Northrop Grumman/EADS group, in a major blow to US manufacturers Boeing.

"It's stunning to me that we would outsource the production of these airplanes to Europe instead of building them in America," said Republican Senator Sam Brownback about the Pentagon's decision.

"I'll be calling upon the Secretary of Defense for a full debriefing and expect there will be a protest of the award by Boeing."

The US Defense Department announced Friday that it was awarding the deal for a fleet of in-flight refuelling craft to the Northrop Grumman/EADS team, in a huge coup for Boeing's main rival Airbus.

The surprise choice of EADS marks the European group's entry into the lucrative US defense market, where so far it had had only a marginal presence.

Boeing voiced strong disappointment after the contract slipped through its hands and said it would ask for an explanation.

"Once we have reviewed the details behind the award, we will make a decision concerning our possible options," said Boeing spokesman William Barksdale, hinting at a possible protest.

While European political and industry leaders have hailed the decision, many Republicans have been left seething.

"We should have an American tanker built by an American company with American workers," said Republican Representative Todd Tiahrt.

"I cannot believe we would create French jobs in place of Kansas jobs."

Boeing, the second leading US defense contractor after Lockheed Martin, had been considered the heavy favorite for the contract and according to its website is the largest employer in Kansas.

The contract for the newly named tanker, the KC-45, is one of the largest Pentagon contracts in recent years and the first order on a tanker market valued at more than 100 billion dollars in more than 30 years.

Los Angeles-based Northrop Grumman and the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company (EADS), parent of Airbus, will provide up to 179 tankers for the US Air Force.

"The tanker is the number-one procurement priority for us right now. It is the first step in our critical commitment to recapitalize our aging fleet to move, supply, and position assets anywhere," said General Duncan McNab, US Air Force chief of staff, in a statement.

The stunning victory for EADS comes as group CEO Louis Gallois seeks to build up its presence in the defense sector, judged to be less cyclical than civil aeronautics.

Gallois told AFP the contract was a "great subject of pride" for the company and would "encourage it to pursue its strategy in the United States."

A spokesman for French President Nicolas Sarkozy said he had called Gallois "to pay homage to this historic success."

"He is delighted that after recent difficulties, EADS has come back brilliantly with record orders, particularly in one of the most difficult and demanding defense markets in the world," said David Martinon in a statement.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, in a statement, called the deal "an immense success for Airbus and for the European aerospace industry."

Airbus will assemble the tankers in Mobile, Alabama, and has vowed to transfer assembly of its commercial 330 aircraft there, creating jobs.

Republican Alabama Senator Richard Shelby welcomed the decision. "Not only is this the right decision for our military, but it is great news for Alabama," he said.

The contract was expected to bring up to 1,800 jobs to the Mobile area and 5,000 to the state, he added.

Boeing and the EADS-Northrop team had been competing for more than a year for the prize, which offers a cushion for decades in case of a downturn in the highly cyclical market for commercial aircraft.

EADS's winning offer is a modified version of the Airbus 330. The commercial plane will be militarized by Northrop Grumman and its American partners to prevent the transfer of sensitive technology to a foreign entity.

Boeing had proposed a version of its long-haul cargo plane, the 767-200.

In May 2003, a similar tanker contract was awarded to Boeing, but it was annulled under allegations of procurement fraud, for which Boeing paid a record 615-million-dollar settlement to the government.

WASHINGTON — Northrop Grumman and the maker of Airbus planes beat out Boeing Co. to win a $35 billion government contract to build military refueling planes, the Air Force said today.

The selection of Los Angeles-based Northrop Grumman and its Paris-based partner, European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co., came as a surprise to Wall Street.

It is a big blow to Chicago-based Boeing, which has been supplying refueling tankers to the Air Force for nearly 50 years and had been widely expected to win the deal.

Gen. Arthur Lichte, the head of Air Mobility Command, said the selected plane, which will be designated the KC-45A, offeres more fuel capacity, more cargo space, more flexibilty and more availability than the Boeing model, which is a modified version of the KC-767.

To suggestions that the selected plane has foreign connections, Lichte replied:

"This is an American plane flown by American airman with an American flag on its tail."

The Boeing proposal would have resulted in about 40,000 U.S. jobs, while the Northrop-EADS plane will create about 25,000. But Assistant Air Force Secretary Sue Payton said job creation was not a factor in selecting the plane.

The cost was secondary to the plane's performance and capabilities, Payton said, adding she would not discuss where Boeing fell short until after the company had been briefed.

The contract positions EADS to break into the U.S. military market in a big way. And it opens up a huge new business opportunity for Northrop Grumman.

The Air Force has estimated the tanker contract will be worth between $30 billion and $40 billion over 10 to 15 years. It is the first of three deals that could eventually be worth as much as $100 billion over 30 years to replace the entire Air Force fleet of nearly 600 refueling tankers.

As the winners of the first award, EADS and Northrop will be in a strong position to win the two follow-on deals, analysts believe.

Military officials say the Air Force is long overdue to replace its air-to-air refueling tankers, which allow fighter jets and other aircraft to refuel without landing. The service currently flies 531 Eisenhower-era tankers and another 59 tankers built in the 1980s by McDonnell Douglas, now part of Boeing.

But the new contract has emerged as a major test for the Air Force, which is trying to rebuild a tattered reputation after a procurement scandal in 2003 sent a top Air Force acquisition official to prison for conflict of interest and led to the collapse of an earlier tanker contract with Boeing.

That scandal was "a half decade ago" and not a factor in the selection, Payton said Friday.

The Air Force hopes to begin retiring some of its oldest KC-135E models as soon as possible, said Lichte, who formerly served as wing commander at Fairchild Air Force Base.

The tanker deal is also certain to become a flashpoint in a heated debate over the military’s use of foreign contractors since Boeing painted the competition as a fight between an American company and its European rival. The Chicago-based company is expected to protest the decision.

Payton said she was sure the award would withstand scrutiny: "We have done everything according to acquistion regulations."

The EADS/Northrop Grumman team plans to perform its final assembly work in Mobile, Ala., although the underlying plane would mostly be built in Europe. And it would use General Electric engines built in North Carolina and Ohio. Northrop Grumman, which is based in Los Angeles, estimates a Northrop/EADS win would produce 2,000 new jobs in Mobile and support 25,000 jobs at suppliers nationwide.

“I’ve never seen anything excite the people of Mobile like this competition,” Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said. “We’re talking about billions of dollars over many years so this is just a huge announcement.”

Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire said she was disappointed by the announcement.

"This is unfortunate news for Boeing and the state of Washington," Gregoire said.

Tuesday, March 04, 2008

A Gentleman by the Name of Hayes, wrote an Op Ed in the Wall Street Journal stating that Ronald Reagan's rhetoric was underestimated by the Democrats and that is party why he won and that Obama is being underestimated now by the Republicans in the same way. I beg to differ, and will go toe-to-toe with anyone who wishes to join with Mr. Hayes to debate me on this topic, as he will need all the help he can get.

You see this Op Ed piece and Mr. Hayes fails to realize that Ronald Reagan was one of the best Governors that California ever had, he was President of the Screen Actors Guild prior to that, he also did talk radio for a year on politics. He was very wise, and accomplished in every regard. And he could back up his words quoting Milton Friedman, Henry Kissinger, and had an incredible array of topics that he could speak on for hours straight. To compare Mr. Obama with Ronald Reagan without considering these other points, is apples and oranges.

It is amazing the amount of Press that Obama is getting, and how often he makes mistakes while speaking, for instance the other day he stated that NAFTA was sending job overseas, wrong, over the borders okay, but that is not what he said. In fact, in OH he says NAFTA is a mistake, but in TX he will have to backtrack that when talking to the Longshoremen, and in El Paso, and in San Antonio where they send over to Mexico so many US Products. And its 65% Hispanic in San Antonio. There is a big difference between offering hope and giving lip service.

Oh sure, you can get away with it for a while, but what happens when you have to explain the cliches, or the positions behind your words? Then what? Ronald Reagan knew his stuff. Obama's handlers will need to be very careful to make sure he sticks to the "chicken soup for the soul" routine, but its a long time until November, and the Media loves to build them up and tear them down. Oh you want me to back up my words do you? Okay how about Howard Dean and John Kerry? If the Democrats run Obama, they need to send him back to learn a few things to compete.

Besides we are talking about the United States of America, the greatest nation ever created in the history of mankind; 17 trillion dollar GDP, and 303 million people. There is a lot at stake here, this is not a joke, we need someone who can handle it and who gets it, but I just don't get that from Obama.

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

COLUMBUS, Ohio — When George Goodburn of Upper Arlington got an e-mail 12 days ago announcing an organizational meeting for Barack Obama's presidential campaign the next night in nearby Columbus, he was fired up and ready to go.

Arriving at a plumbers' union hall to meet campaign officials, however, Goodburn was stunned. "Five hundred people showed up on 24 hour's notice," he said. "It was incredible."

More than any previous presidential campaign, Obama's effort is transforming politics with its use of technology. The astounding fund-raising figures are well documented - the campaign keeps a running tally on its website as it closes in on 1 million donors. But Obama's team has taken the use of the Internet to another level by allowing masses of volunteers to self-organize over the past year and communicate through their own social networking site, my.barackobama.com.

Created with help from Chris Hughes, one of three Harvard roommates who invented Facebook four years ago, MyBO, as campaign staffers call it, has about 500,000 members nationwide, a network of groups and individuals that the campaign ultimately harnesses for the old-fashioned nuts-and-bolts of electioneering - identifying supporters and getting them to vote in primaries and caucuses.

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

CHICAGO — A cluster of cramped cubicles, tucked away in a rear corner of Senator Barack Obama’s campaign headquarters here, serves as the heart of a fund-raising machine that has reshaped the calculus of the 2008 election.

Mr. Obama’s finance director, Julianna Smoot, who has helped him raise more than $150 million so far, does not even have her own office. A Ping-Pong table is the gathering spot for Friday lunches for her team.

The setting, which has the feel of an Internet start-up, is emblematic of how Mr. Obama, of Illinois, has been able to raise so much money. On Wednesday, the Obama campaign will report to the Federal Election Commission that it collected $36 million in January — $4 million more than campaign officials had previously estimated — an unprecedented feat for a single month in American politics that was powered overwhelmingly by small online donations. That dwarfed the $13.5 million in January that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York is expected to report Wednesday and the $12 million Senator John McCain’s campaign said he brought in for the month.

Mr. Obama’s startling success, however, has also now put him on the spot, tempting him to back away from indications he gave last year that he would agree to accept public financing in the general election if the Republican nominee did the same. The hesitation has given Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee whose advisers concede he would most likely fall far short of Mr. Obama’s fund-raising for the general election, fodder for a series of attacks.

“This type of backpedaling and waffling isn’t what inspired millions of people to invest in Senator Obama’s candidacy,” said Jill Hazelbaker, a spokeswoman for Mr. McCain.

Under rules of public financing, a candidate has access to $85 million from a taxpayer-financed fund for the general election, a substantial amount to spend for the roughly two months after this year’s conventions. But this election cycle has shattered fund-raising and spending records and upended expectations.

The details of Mr. Obama’s January fund-raising illustrate just how much his campaign has been able to chart a new path for the presidential race. He brought in $28 million online, with 90 percent of those transactions coming from people who donated $100 or less, and 40 percent from donors who gave $25 or less, suggesting that these contributors could be tapped for more. (Donors are limited to giving $2,300 per candidate during the primary season.) More than 200,000 of the campaign’s nearly 300,000 donors in January were first-time givers to Mr. Obama.

The campaign’s success over the Internet has freed Mr. Obama from having to take valuable time off the trail for fund-raising events for major donors — just $4 million in January came from traditional fund-raisers.

“We know we don’t have to get him in front of as many major donors now,” Ms. Smoot said.

Mr. Obama has done just a few traditional fund-raising events in January and none in February, in contrast to the Clinton campaign, which has been keeping up a steady diet of fund-raisers with either Mrs. Clinton or her husband, former President Bill Clinton.

Mrs. Clinton’s operation has also been pushing to improve its efforts online, with her campaign saying Tuesday that it brought in $15 million over the Internet in February, with donations jumping after news broke that she had lent $5 million to her campaign.

Mr. Obama’s January surge surprised even members of his finance team. When Meaghan Burdick, who works on Mr. Obama’s online fund-raising efforts with Joe Rospars, the campaign’s director of new media, drew up a set of projections in December, she came up with three possibilities for January in the event Mr. Obama won Iowa, finished second or third, with a victory expected to draw $10 million to $15 million over the Internet.

At the center of the Obama campaign’s online effort is an e-mail list, which now numbers in the millions but started out with fewer than 50,000, culled mostly from Mr. Obama’s Senate run.

That list grew as Mr. Obama’s many rallies drew thousands of people, where attendees gave their e-mail addresses to the campaign, as well as other initiatives to draw more people into the campaign’s orbit.

But tapping small-money donors can be a balancing act. Campaign officials say they believe they have gotten better at calibrating efforts at making sales pitches for cash while also trying to encourage people to participate in other ways. As a result, a recent e-mail message asked supporters to write letters to superdelegates making their case for Mr. Obama.

The campaign’s online donors have also come to form the backbone of its vaunted grass-roots operation across the country, with information about new donors quickly transmitted to organizers on the ground to enlist for phone banks and other volunteer efforts.

“We want to make sure that the experience people have with us is not solely around money,” said David Plouffe, Mr. Obama’s campaign manager.

After Mr. Obama’s victory in Iowa, the campaign collected $2.8 million online. But it was the two days after Mr. Obama’s stunning loss to Mrs. Clinton in New Hampshire that campaign officials point to as when they began to realize they were in for an extraordinary month.

On the evening of the primary, Mr. Obama’s finance staff settled in to watch the results from their cubicles. When the television networks called the race for Mrs. Clinton, their spirits sagged. But Ms. Burdick was staring at her laptop, watching a graph showing how much money was coming into the Obama campaign over the Internet. Within minutes, it was shooting upward.

“This is crazy,” Ms. Burdick said, calling over to two of her colleagues sitting near her.

Within three hours, the campaign had cleared $500,000. In the morning, when Ms. Burdick checked again, the campaign had raised $750,000. Over the course of two days, Mr. Obama collected $4.4 million online.

The campaign sent out an e-mail message from Mr. Obama to donors the morning after the New Hampshire defeat.

“I know you just made a donation, but we are about to enter the most decisive period of the campaign,” he said, signing his name at the end, “Thank you, Barack.”

In Birmingham, Ala., Matthew Lane, 38, logged into his e-mail and received that message. Although he earns less than $20,000 a year as a storyteller in public libraries and as a freelance writer, he decided to give $25 on top of a few small contributions he had made dating to March 2007.

“The campaign has been so incredibly grass-roots, it does sort of feel like you are making a difference,” Mr. Lane said, “even in giving in small increments like that.”

And this month, after the Feb. 5 primaries, Mr. Lane decided to tack on another $25 donation.

Saturday, February 16, 2008

In the US presidential election, YouTube looks as if it will play a key role. The video networking site is already providing what may be the biggest ever audience for a political speech, 13 million and counting.

A politician's address to the party faithful is not something normally noted for its entertainment value, but an online version of Democratic candidate Barack Obama's concession speech from the New Hampshire primary on January 8 is currently attracting more than a million hits a day.

Granted, it was a rousing address, but it has been made considerably more palatable by the addition of light hip-hop beats, a softly strummed acoustic guitar, and a chorus line of celebrities singing out the rallying cry, "Yes, we can." Artfully shot in black and white, faces and voices layered one on top of the other, this is the political speech as pop video.

Cut from the speech's original 13 minutes to a concise and uplifting four and a half, the video achieves things politicians can usually only dream about, but which pop takes for granted: it puts emotion at the centre of the message, it never bores, and it is effortlessly cool. It is a party political broadcast for a generation who would never watch a party political broadcast.

The song was conceived by Will.i.am of superstar hip-hop trio Black Eyed Peas, and the video was shot by Jesse Dylan, son of rock's original protest superstar, Bob Dylan. The pair claim that it took just a few days from conception to completion. Will.i.am had the idea while watching a televised political debate on January 29, and by Feb 2 it was online, in time for the Super Tuesday polls.

advertisement

The speed with which it was made is reflected in the slightly haphazard list of celebrity participants they managed to cobble together. Soul star John Legend, jazz supremo Herbie Hancock and indie film pin-up Scarlett Johansson are among those lining up to singalonga-Obama.

If anything, these familiar but slightly alternative faces (joined by sports people, actors, comedians and ingénues) lend the project a counter-culture hipness that might have been undermined by the usual A-list suspects.

The retro feel of the black-and-white images is particularly inspired, invoking notions of the '60s Civil Rights movement, and drawing oblique yet deliberate comparison to two of the most inspirational and affectionately recalled American leaders, President Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr: "A president who chose the moon as our new frontier, and a King who took us to the mountaintop", as Obama calls them in his speech.

Although made without the Obama campaign's participation, Yes, We Can is an almost perfect piece of political propaganda, aimed at exactly the young voters who might be inclined to support a socially liberal black candidate but are often apathetic when it comes to actually turning up at polling stations.

It is a rallying call that bypasses the usual media channels to bring the message directly to the people who need to hear it, in a place where they will be most likely to find it, in a form in which they might actually pay attention to it.

Rallying call: the 'Yes We Can' video on YouTube features a succession of famous faces

What works most effectively on YouTube (with its small screen, low visual resolution and download speed limitations) are soundbites and visual gags. Hillary Clinton's campaign team got in early with a spoof Sopranos video introducing her campaign song, Céline Dion's overblown ballad You and I.

While it achieved generally positive media coverage, in retrospect it looks hammy and badly tuned to the tastes of the internet audience, and consequently generated hit numbers in the mere thousands.

The first real internet success of the campaign was I Got a Crush on Obama, a witty video by satirists Barely Political, in which a scantily dressed girl gushes over Obama footage to a light R&B backing track, suggestively singing, "You can Barack me tonight."

It quickly notched up in excess of six million hits, becoming one of YouTube's most popular clips of 2007. Although it was not created by the Obama campaign, the Senator's mild reaction to something that might have been deemed disrespectful suggests that he understood its potential benefit to his campaign. "It's just one more example of the fertile imagination of the internet," Obama commented. "More stuff like this will be popping up all the time."

Will.i.am's Yes, We Can video fulfils his prediction. Its immediate impact can be gauged by other videos posted last week, using similar black-and-white footage of Republican candidate John McCain, in which his words are twisted against him (and the multicultural casts in the background eventually stop singing to register their disgust).

These are satirical in intent, and harsher in feel, but they indicate that Yes, We Can has already achieved iconic status.

Pop and politics have been linked ever since Bob Dylan first took up an acoustic guitar. Their usual relationship, however, leans more towards antagonism than endorsement. During the 2004 presidential election, major stars including REM, Bruce Springsteen and Dave Matthews embarked on the Vote for Change tour, a series of concerts staged in swing states to encourage people to kick out George Bush.

Despite its high media profile, it failed to sway the vote in any of the targeted states. As things heated up, superstar rapper Eminem rush-released Mosh, a virulently anti-Bush polemic, complete with punchy cartoon video urging his fans to the polls.

A decidedly modern reinvention of the protest song, Mosh received massive media attention and (in the pre-YouTube era) became one of the most rapidly and widely dispersed online videos - but to no discernible political effect.

What Will.i.am has crafted is not a protest song at all. Where Mosh, like most protest music, was overwhelmingly negative in its message, trying to stir the vote with anger, Yes, We Can is selling hope, a much more seductive concept. It is being accepted by the internet audience because it has the authenticity of something that has sprung directly from the internet, something that Obama's opponents (Democrat or Republican) are likely to find difficult to counter.

Obama is arguably the first natural candidate of the internet age. He has underdog status, while his skin colour alone lends him a (possibly spurious) association with a century of American counterculture cool. Crucially, at 46, he is young enough to be comfortable with the medium.

His head speechwriter, Jon Favreau, who presumably came up with the words that fell so well into the cadences of a hip-hop song, is just 26. There is a generational shift taking place, and the Yes, We Can video may just represent the moment when it breaks through to the surface.

American political commentators have been downplaying its probable impact, suggesting that it is preaching to the converted. But the big question right now is: can Obama continue to upset the traditional balance of power by getting his young converts to the polls? The message beaming out across the net is: yes, he can.

The following is a transcript of Barack Obama’s prepared remarks for his victory speech in Columbia, S.C.:

Over two weeks ago, we saw the people of Iowa proclaim that our time for change has come. But there were those who doubted this country’s desire for something new - who said Iowa was a fluke not to be repeated again.

Well, tonight, the cynics who believed that what began in the snows of Iowa was just an illusion were told a different story by the good people of South Carolina.

After four great contests in every corner of this country, we have the most votes, the most delegates, and the most diverse coalition of Americans we’ve seen in a long, long time.

They are young and old; rich and poor. They are black and white; Latino and Asian. They are Democrats from Des Moines and Independents from Concord; Republicans from rural Nevada and young people across this country who’ve never had a reason to participate until now. And in nine days, nearly half the nation will have the chance to join us in saying that we are tired of business-as-usual in Washington, we are hungry for change, and we are ready to believe again.

But if there’s anything we’ve been reminded of since Iowa, it’s that the kind of change we seek will not come easy. Partly because we have fine candidates in the field - fierce competitors, worthy of respect. And as contentious as this campaign may get, we have to remember that this is a contest for the Democratic nomination, and that all of us share an abiding desire to end the disastrous policies of the current administration.

But there are real differences between the candidates. We are looking for more than just a change of party in the White House. We’re looking to fundamentally change the status quo in Washington - a status quo that extends beyond any particular party. And right now, that status quo is fighting back with everything it’s got; with the same old tactics that divide and distract us from solving the problems people face, whether those problems are health care they can’t afford or a mortgage they cannot pay.

So this will not be easy. Make no mistake about what we’re up against.

We are up against the belief that it’s ok for lobbyists to dominate our government - that they are just part of the system in Washington. But we know that the undue influence of lobbyists is part of the problem, and this election is our chance to say that we’re not going to let them stand in our way anymore.

We are up against the conventional thinking that says your ability to lead as President comes from longevity in Washington or proximity to the White House. But we know that real leadership is about candor, and judgment, and the ability to rally Americans from all walks of life around a common purpose - a higher purpose.

We are up against decades of bitter partisanship that cause politicians to demonize their opponents instead of coming together to make college affordable or energy cleaner; it’s the kind of partisanship where you’re not even allowed to say that a Republican had an idea - even if it’s one you never agreed with. That kind of politics is bad for our party, it’s bad for our country, and this is our chance to end it once and for all.

We are up against the idea that it’s acceptable to say anything and do anything to win an election. We know that this is exactly what’s wrong with our politics; this is why people don’t believe what their leaders say anymore; this is why they tune out. And this election is our chance to give the American people a reason to believe again.

And what we’ve seen in these last weeks is that we’re also up against forces that are not the fault of any one campaign, but feed the habits that prevent us from being who we want to be as a nation. It’s the politics that uses religion as a wedge, and patriotism as a bludgeon. A politics that tells us that we have to think, act, and even vote within the confines of the categories that supposedly define us. The assumption that young people are apathetic. The assumption that Republicans won’t cross over. The assumption that the wealthy care nothing for the poor, and that the poor don’t vote. The assumption that African-Americans can’t support the white candidate; whites can’t support the African-American candidate; blacks and Latinos can’t come together.

But we are here tonight to say that this is not the America we believe in. I did not travel around this state over the last year and see a white South Carolina or a black South Carolina. I saw South Carolina. I saw crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children. I saw shuttered mills and homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from all walks of life, and men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. I saw what America is, and I believe in what this country can be.

That is the country I see. That is the country you see. But now it is up to us to help the entire nation embrace this vision. Because in the end, we are not just up against the ingrained and destructive habits of Washington, we are also struggling against our own doubts, our own fears, and our own cynicism. The change we seek has always required great struggle and sacrifice. And so this is a battle in our own hearts and minds about what kind of country we want and how hard we’re willing to work for it.

So let me remind you tonight that change will not be easy. That change will take time. There will be setbacks, and false starts, and sometimes we will make mistakes. But as hard as it may seem, we cannot lose hope. Because there are people all across this country who are counting us; who can’t afford another four years without health care or good schools or decent wages because our leaders couldn’t come together and get it done.

Theirs are the stories and voices we carry on from South Carolina.

The mother who can’t get Medicaid to cover all the needs of her sick child - she needs us to pass a health care plan that cuts costs and makes health care available and affordable for every single American.

The teacher who works another shift at Dunkin Donuts after school just to make ends meet - she needs us to reform our education system so that she gets better pay, and more support, and her students get the resources they need to achieve their dreams.

The Maytag worker who is now competing with his own teenager for a $7-an-hour job at Wal-Mart because the factory he gave his life to shut its doors - he needs us to stop giving tax breaks to companies that ship our jobs overseas and start putting them in the pockets of working Americans who deserve it. And struggling homeowners. And seniors who should retire with dignity and respect.

The woman who told me that she hasn’t been able to breathe since the day her nephew left for Iraq, or the soldier who doesn’t know his child because he’s on his third or fourth tour of duty - they need us to come together and put an end to a war that should’ve never been authorized and never been waged.

The choice in this election is not between regions or religions or genders. It’s not about rich versus poor; young versus old; and it is not about black versus white.

It’s about the past versus the future.

It’s about whether we settle for the same divisions and distractions and drama that passes for politics today, or whether we reach for a politics of common sense, and innovation - a shared sacrifice and shared prosperity.

There are those who will continue to tell us we cannot do this. That we cannot have what we long for. That we are peddling false hopes.

But here’s what I know. I know that when people say we can’t overcome all the big money and influence in Washington, I think of the elderly woman who sent me a contribution the other day - an envelope that had a money order for $3.01 along with a verse of scripture tucked inside. So don’t tell us change isn’t possible.

When I hear the cynical talk that blacks and whites and Latinos can’t join together and work together, I’m reminded of the Latino brothers and sisters I organized with, and stood with, and fought with side by side for jobs and justice on the streets of Chicago. So don’t tell us change can’t happen.

When I hear that we’ll never overcome the racial divide in our politics, I think about that Republican woman who used to work for Strom Thurmond, who’s now devoted to educating inner-city children and who went out onto the streets of South Carolina and knocked on doors for this campaign. Don’t tell me we can’t change.

Yes we can change.

Yes we can heal this nation.

Yes we can seize our future.

And as we leave this state with a new wind at our backs, and take this journey across the country we love with the message we’ve carried from the plains of Iowa to the hills of New Hampshire; from the Nevada desert to the South Carolina coast; the same message we had when we were up and when we were down - that out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope; and where we are met with cynicism, and doubt, and those who tell us that we can’t, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people in three simple words:

Monday, January 21, 2008

An ABC News/ Washington Post poll showed that McCain is now at the top of Republicans. From the Democrats, Obama has caught up with Hillary Clinton and recovered his earlier lead position, which he gained during the Iowa caucuses.

Obama's gain is, in great part, due to the support he has received from the African-Americans. They now back Obama by a 60 - 32 percent margin, while only a little earlier, they supported Clinton by a margin of 52 - 39 percent.

Below are some of the major changes over the last month:

* McCain's popularity within the Republican Party as the most electable contender has almost tripled. His rating as the strongest leader within the party has doubled. He has won double-digit gains in trust to resolve the Iraq problem and terrorism.

While 29 percent voters say that the economy in the US is the most crucial issue facing the country, 20 percent voters believe it is the war in Iraq. Ten percent voters hold health care as the most important issue.

Barack Obama's run for president has found backing from the former basketball champion, Senator Bill Bradley. According to Obama's aides, Bradley, who has himself in the past run for president, would be campaigning for Obama.

The aides, who spoke on condition of anonymity, hoped that the endorsement would help Obama to displace Hillary Clinton from her position as the national front-runner. Clinton, in the recently concluded caucuses in Iowa last week, came third in Iowa's caucuses. According to a recent poll, Clinton was caught in a tie with Obama in New Hampshire.

In a press release, Brady praised Obama saying, "Barack Obama is building a broad new coalition that brings together Democrats, independents and Republicans by once again making idealism a central focus of our politics". Bradly also went on to say, "Because of his enormous appeal to Americans of all ages and backgrounds, Obama is the candidate best positioned to win in November. ... His movement for change could create a new era of American politics _ truly a new American story."

As of now, the optimism in the Obama camp seems justified. Obama is running very close to Clinton, with both leaders enjoying 33 percent support in a CNN-WMUR poll. The poll was conducted two days after Barack Obama's victory in Iowa. Another poll conducted by The Concord Monitor and Research 2000, had Obama leading at 34, with Clinton just behind at 33. However, he will face a tough fight from Clinton who is planning to take on Obama in New Hampshire where the presidential primary is scheduled.

In a statement, Obama said, "Bill Bradley has always called on Americans to reach for what is possible in our politics....As a presidential candidate and author, he has continued to challenge us to build a mandate for pragmatic solutions and progressive change, and I am truly grateful that he has endorsed my candidacy."

Incidentally, Obama's state director, Matt Rodriguez, was earlier a top aide in Bradley's campaign. Bradley was a contender in the 2000 presidential primary against Vice President Al Gore. He projected himself as an alternative to the incumbent Gore. He failed because the independents, the biggest voting bloc in New Hampshire's, chose to back Senator John McCain.

Bradley considered another bid in 2004, supporting the Vermont Governor Howard Dean, but then opted out.

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

“Let’s get down to brass tacks here,” declared Christy Tews, rising from her front-row seat to size up Senator Barack Obama. “We have never elected a black man in our country.”

“I’ve noticed that,” he replied.

“How can you address that issue or overcome that issue?” she said.

With those words, a subject that has loomed over the presidential campaign in recent days came into crisp focus here late Monday evening. Ms. Tews, 68, prefaced her question by saying she is searching for a Democrat who can win. Period.

People stood on chairs to see Barack Obama at the Carson City Community Center in Carson City, Nev. (Photo: Ozier Muhammad/The New York Times)

“That is a wonderful question,” Mr. Obama said. “I’m glad you asked.”

On the Democratic side of the ticket, the Nevada caucuses on Saturday are the third stop in the race for the White House. While the campaigns have had modest outfits in place for months, they are merely a fraction of the Iowa or New Hampshire operations. And the candidates essentially are starting from the beginning as they meet voters for the first – and likely the only – time during the abbreviated campaign season here.

Chastened by his loss in New Hampshire, where he rode a wave of confidence from his victory in Iowa and seldom took questions from voters, Mr. Obama is dutifully interacting with voters as he makes his way through Nevada. He sought to address Ms. Tews’ concerns directly, beginning with his biography, followed by his improbable entry into national politics.

“People said, ‘he’s very talented, he can do a great job in the Senate, but they will never elected a black guy named Barack Obama,’ ” he said. “You can’t even pronounce his name!”

As Mr. Obama continued, he reminded his audience of several hundred people in a community center, and an overflow auditorium with a giant projector screen that seated just as many, that he defeated seven rivals in the primary before going on to win the general election by 30 points. “Or was it 40?” he mused. (He left out the part about how his opponent, Alan Keyes, was recruited to Illinois to join a contest already in progress.)

“I’ve seen how we can reach out and people will take you for who you are. I really trust in the American people,” Mr. Obama said, explaining his appeal as a senator. “But I recognize that the presidency is different. I recognize that people will attack you and send out all kinds of emails, accusing me of being this or being that.”

This is the first year Nevada has played such an early role in the presidential race. The definition of a caucus – a routine part of the vocabulary in Iowa – is being urgently explained to voters across the state.

Yet here in the Nevada capital on Monday evening, the gathering of voters quickly picked up on the fact that they could ask the presidential candidate anything. So there was the usual variety of questions devoted to health care, veterans issues and immigration, as well as the concern about Mr. Obama’s ability to win high office.

“I started from scratch and have been competing against the top political operation in the country that was built over 20 years by the former president of the United States of America,” he said with a grin. “I don’t know if anybody has noticed, but we’re playing it even right now.”

But it was the question from Ms. Tews, who lives in nearby Washoe Valley, that seemed to draw the most attention on a day when Mr. Obama called a truce over an intensifying argument over race with Mrs. Clinton. One hour later, she followed suit.

“I don’t want to sound naïve. Will there be some folks who probably won’t vote for me because I’m black? Of course,” Mr. Obama said. “Just like there will be some of you who wouldn’t vote for Hillary because she’s a woman or John Edwards because of his accent. The question is, can we get a majority of the American people to give us a fair hearing? I believe that I’ve already proven it.”

His race, he said, will not diminish his chances.

“If I don’t win this primary or if I don’t win the general election, it will be because I haven’t persuaded the American people that I can make their lives better,” Mr. Obama. “I think I can, because I have a track record.”

So what did Ms. Tews think of his answer?

She said she was unaware of the specific elements of his background that led to his career before becoming a senator and presidential candidate.

“There was a point during when he was speaking that all of a sudden, I said to myself, this man is electable,” Ms. Tews said in an interview. “It was the way he was actually looking, the expression on this face, which was open and inclusive expression. It seemed convincing.”

The last time she participated in a caucus, she said, was when she lived in Kansas and supported Senator George McGovern. “My dad, who was a Democrat, said, ‘You did the wrong thing. He can’t get elected,’” she recalled. “And my dad was right.”

So how about the 2008 race?

“I came here undecided, but I’m leaning Obama,” she said, before reaching over to shake his hand as he worked his way through the crowd. “He has some convincing statistics behind him and a convincing record. I wasn’t that aware of it.”

As a camera crew rushed over to film Ms. Tews, she took on the air of a seasoned participant of the presidential campaign, sounding much like one of her fellow early-state voters from Iowa or New Hampshire.

“Clinton was here Saturday afternoon, but I wasn’t able to get to her,” said Ms. Tews, sounding out a multitude of political offerings. “But isn’t John Edwards coming here tomorrow or the next day?”

Friday, January 04, 2008

Tuesday, January 01, 2008

I am not sure when it happened, but recently the American media decided that Hillary Clinton will be the next President. They didn't even wait for Oprah's endorsement. As a political consultant and researcher, I am used to rhetoric being offered as fact. But this time around, a new variable requires greater skepticism. In the 2008 Presidential election, will voters support a female?

The assumption is yes. The voices of this election refuse to address this issue in fear of being banished to the island of the non-P.C. In attempt to communicate forward-thinking views, serious examination of the gender effect has been omitted. "Look at me, I won't even acknowledge Hillary's gender because society has moved past this consideration." But in fact, a real dialog on America's historical and continued evolution beyond discrimination has been lost. With over twenty years of political work, I know that selling a candidate requires answering the most difficult questions first.

In the 2006 U.S. Senatorial campaign, I was presented with a female candidate who was relatively unknown and saddled with a last name that was unwieldy. What to do? The logical solution was to emphasize her first name. The incumbent was also a woman and two very different female names was a good way to set up a natural contrast. We decided to change all of the print materials and yard signs to display "BARBARA." I was confident in the decision, but needed research to confirm.

My firm conducts political research using a unique algorithm. Our results are trusted because of our accuracy. We included name response along with the issue research we did for this candidate. Surprise, over twenty percent of likely voters did not like the name Barbara. More importantly, they fell into two distinct groups which could be specifically targeted with a different approach.

Recent Gallop Polls have indicated that nearly 90% of American voters would support a female presidential candidate. This could be misleading, as it is the politically correct response to give. In my own surveys, I have inquired "Would you vote for a women for the office of ...?" This is quite different asking if a voter prefers candidate A over candidate B, where candidate A is female. It is not a matter of politics, but rather of voter evolution. The person who actually casts a ballot in America might not be ready to vote for a female in the quantity required for an Electoral College victory.

Scott is a Political Advertising Agency and Voice Works specializing in Radio. We represent National, State and local candidates or issue campaigns. Over twenty years experience. 2006-2008 Agency of record for U.S. Senate Campaign in Texas. We assist Independents, Republicans and Democrats. Scott Radio services include: Voice Work, Advertising Agency, Research, Publishing and Political Consulting.

His Presidential campaign was left for dead by almost everyone in the late summer of 2007. Many of his senior advisors had quit his campaign or had been fired. In just six months, his campaign had run through its sizable financial war chest ($25 million) and was broke. However, these sad occurrences were not even his worst problem.

McCain had just negotiated a compromise bill with Democrats behind close doors. The Republican Party's conservative base hated the path to citizenship for illegal aliens proposal that was a result of his sponsored bill. Both conservative and independent voters saw the compromise bill as amnesty for illegal aliens and swarmed Washington like angry bees around honey. The very people whose votes McCain needed to win the 2008 Presidential election killed his immigration bill. His Republican supporters felt betrayed and his public opinion poll numbers plunged well below 10% nationwide. He sank to fourth place in public opinion polls in the early primary voting state of New Hampshire.

McCain was running a campaign that could not manage money, made bad hiring decisions, and had a tin ear concerning one of the most important issues to his base of support. Worse, he was making decisions behind close doors and looked like a Washington insider. This in an election year in which the public almost unanimously disapproves of the way Congress is doing its job. Indeed, by the early fall of 2007, John McCain looked like the ultimate Washington insider. He appeared to the Republican Party as old, out of touch, and his campaign looked to be finished.

What McCain has done since his campaign's late summer low point is what he has done successfully throughout his life. This man, when faced with extreme adversity, simply does not quit. McCain stopped spending money and carried his own bags. He took buses instead of planes. He poked fun at himself and at his advanced age. He was always open and amicable to reporter. He has continued to campaign tirelessly. It has also helped McCain that the troop surge in Iraq which he has long supported is working.

The voting public appreciates McCain's campaign persistence and the fact that his campaign is not staged and reliant on every public opinion poll. The result is that McCain is suddenly surging as the election draws near. He has moved within two points of the lead in the New Hampshire primary that he has to win. Nationally, McCain is now within 4% of Republican leaders, Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee.

In the last few weeks, his support has doubled in Iowa. In addition, the latest polling has indicated that McCain has the lowest core opposition of any candidate in this year's election in either party (Rasmussen). Republicans will also consider that McCain is leading in a trial match up with every Democratic candidate in the general election.

In this Presidential election campaign, the voters want change. However they do not want to create unnecessary political risk inherent with that change. Therefore, experience is also a valuable commodity. A person's character is always well considered by the voting public. In the last several months, McCain has demonstrated both his character and experience in adversity.

Still, McCain's road to winning the Republican Presidential nomination has many obstacles. He does not have the money in his campaign war chest to properly compete for primary voters nationwide. It is essential that he win the primary election in New Hampshire for his campaign to remain viable. McCain also needs to somehow reclaim some of the support from conservative voters that he lost in the last six months. The truth is that he should have stayed away from the illegal immigration issue and gone on vacation last summer.

The good news for McCain is that it is a volatile election year and all the candidates are still very close in the public opinion polls. As a result, the 2008 Republican primary election could turn out to be an extended war of attrition. If that is the case, we should never underestimate this former American hero and POW. In any war, based on his courage, discipline, integrity and character, John McCain could well be the last man standing.

James William Smith has worked in Senior management positions for some of the largest Financial Services firms in the United States for the last twenty five years. He has also provided business consulting support for insurance organizations and start up businesses. He has always been interested in writing and listening to different viewpoints on interesting topics.

Republican Mike Huckabee is now in his final year as Governor of Arkansas. He hails from Hope, Arkansas - the same home town as former President and Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton. The ordained Baptist minister and former televangelist made his political debut by winning a special election for lieutenant governor in 1993. He was subsequently elected to a full four-year term as lieutenant governor in 1994. He was elevated to governor in 1996 when Democratic Governor Jim Guy Tucker resigned in a plea deal connected with the Whitewater scandal. In 1998, Huckabee was elected to his first full term as governor and then re-elected in 2002. He was elected to a one-year term as chairman of the National Governors Association last July.

Unlike some of his potential rivals for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination, Huckabee is both a fiscal conservative and a social conservative. This, combined with the fact that he is a fellow southerner, could make him an attractive choice for southern primary voters. That is, of course, if he can survive Iowa and New Hampshire. Survival for him will probably mean finishing in the top three in Iowa and the top two in New Hampshire. Coming out of those two states as the only surviving southerner in the nomination fight would be a major plus.

Formerly obese, Huckabee has waged a public battle with weight problems over the past several years, during which he has managed to lose a whopping 110 pounds. If he decides to run for president in 2008, one of his campaign slogans will likely be " I [heart symbol] Huckabee!"

Terry Mitchell is a software engineer, freelance writer, and blogger from Hopewell, VA. On his blog - http://commenterry.blogs.com - he posts commentaries on various subjects such as politics, technology, religion, health and well-being, personal finance, and sports. His commentaries offer a unique point of view that is not often found in mainstream media.

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

Before they chartered planes and opened teeming offices in Des Moines or Manchester, even before they announced their lofty ambitions to the world, the current field of presidential candidates set about absorbing the lessons of Howard Dean’s 2004 campaign. Dean lost, of course, and in a fairly ignominious way, but his campaign was the first to harness the fund-raising and organizing power of the Internet, and both parties’ 2008 hopefuls had visions of replicating his model — minus the meltdown. One of the first things they did was to sign on a new class of online organizers and fund-raisers. The Web was the new frontier of American politics, and the candidates intended to exploit it.

Now, as we come to the end of a tumultuous political year, it seems clear that the candidates and their advisers absorbed the wrong lessons from Dean’s moment, or at least they failed to grasp an essential truth of it, which is that these things can’t really be orchestrated. Dean’s campaign didn’t explode online because he somehow figured out a way to channel online politics; he managed this feat because his campaign, almost by accident, became channeled by people he had never met. Dean for America was branded from its core antiwar message down to the design of some of its bumper stickers and buttons by laptop-laden volunteers, and these strangers, it could be argued, both made and unmade the candidate. In the new and evolving online world, the greatest momentum goes not to the candidate with the most detailed plan for conquering the Web but to the candidate who surrenders his own image to the clicking masses, the same way a rock guitarist might fall backward off the stage into the hands of an adoring crowd.

How else to explain the notable online surge of support for Ron Paul, the onetime standard-bearer of the Libertarian Party? Unlike his main opponents, Paul himself didn’t have the resources to build a sophisticated Web campaign, but antiwar and antispending Republicans were happy to do it for him. Last month, Paul supporters who had nothing to do with the campaign organized an online fund-raiser on Guy Fawkes Day, a British holiday named for the rebel who tried to assassinate King James I. Paul’s stunned campaign brought in more than $4 million and 21,000 new contributors in a single day — the largest 24-hour haul of any Republican candidate to date.

Meanwhile, those candidates who have amassed roomfuls of well-paid online experts have frequently found themselves buffeted or embarrassed (or sometimes both at once) by mysterious forces outside their grasp. Take, for instance, the much-forwarded “Obama Girl” music video, written by a 21-year-old undergraduate at Temple University. (“Universal healthcare reform/It makes me warm,” mouths the model in the video.) Fairly or not, that video probably had more to do with shaping Obama’s complicated public image — young and exciting but maybe a bit shallow — than any Internet appeal devised by the candidate’s own aides.

Such developments probably came as no surprise to many in the business world, who understood years ago that the Web represented not simply another mass medium to be gamed but also a fundamental shift in the once static relationship between producer and consumer. It is by nature a participatory medium, in which customers demand a more personal stake in the products they consume. This is why Ford asked online drivers to help decide which options should appear on last year’s Fusion, and how much it should cost, and why Mountain Dew has a Web site that invites consumers to invent the next great soft drink. Companies have realized that since they can no longer expect to unilaterally define the market the way they once did, they might as well let the market have some control over designing and branding the product.

Perhaps only in Washington, where so few people have dominated so much for so long, is this trend viewed as inherently negative. That’s because, for decades, presidential campaigns have been the exclusive province of a small bevy of ad makers and strategists who profited from the illusion that they, and only they, could foresee the electorate’s every reaction to everything. The results of that period are now in: a marked decline in voter participation, an uptick in cynicism toward public service and a heap of critical policy challenges that have gone unaddressed. So why should we fear a new day when ordinary voters, through their own creativity and passion, can suddenly influence the direction of a campaign with a Web site or a video? These are, after all, our campaigns, for too long dominated by the professionals who made of them a gray and tepid industry. And if “Obama Girl” didn’t deepen anyone’s understanding of employer mandates or carbon caps, then at least she enticed a lot of ordinary people — more than four million, at last count — to laugh and sing about a would-be president the way a less-jaded generation of voters sang “I’m Just Wild About Harry.”

Of course, the leading candidates still aren’t ready to entrust their message to the masses. (Look no further than Hillary Clinton’s campaign, which has apparently planted questions in public forums in an effort to control the dialogue.) Whichever candidates get their parties’ nominations next year, they will probably try valiantly to insulate their campaigns from the kind of Internet entrepreneurs and amateur videographers who would distract voters from their predetermined message. But this is a losing proposition; about the only thing we can reasonably know for sure about the general election campaign is that it will be profoundly affected by outside actors we can’t yet conjure, voters sitting in basements and coffee shops dreaming up their own kind of self-expression. Neither party’s candidate will escape the impulses, best or worst, of a newly empowered citizenry. The best they can do is to fall backward and hope to be carried aloft.

Matt Bai, who covers politics for the magazine, is the author of “The Argument: Billionaires, Bloggers and the Battle to Remake Democratic Politics.”

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

America has the strongest and most high tech military the world has ever seen. There is no current military threat religious or otherwise in the entire world that is able to match it. As a result, the United States faces a different kind of war which has been waged at it's borders for many years now and it's called; "Massive Illegal Immigration". Listen to what the troops are saying who are in favor of massive illegal immigration...

In Dallas, Texas, on April 9, 2006 half a million people marched, again waving Mexican flags with “Our Lady of Guadalupe” (an immensely popular “apparition” of the “Virgin Mary” in Mexico).

The Main Force Behind Massive Illegal Immigration

“Prayer books and guides to social and religious services should be provided along the way and at the points of arrival. The migrants should be reminded of their role as evangelizers". U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops

There has been little dispute about the vast majority of illegals being Roman Catholics coming from Mexico and other Latin countries. There has been however, various theories on the main force behind the massive illegal immigration army which is constantly crossing the US border. Talk show hosts in mainstream conservatism and liberalism on various media outlets say its merely poverty that drives them across. While others say illegals want to make money so they can go back to their own country and retire the rest of their lives while living a rich life. However, and this is not something you will hear on Fox News or CNN, or in the mainstream in general, but the Vatican has for years been the main force behind the invasion. Yes, the Vatican! Why? Like the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops have declared the role of the illegals is be "evangelizers". Not only that, but it's main focus is to basically populate America with more Catholics. A Roman Catholic priest, Paul Marx, back in 1987, was pretty clear and open about the Vatican's role in supporting and encouraging illegal mass immigration of Latin Americans into the United States he states:

“America is a dying nation. I tell the Mexicans when I am down in Mexico to keep on having children, and then to take back what we took from them: California, Texas, Arizona, and then to take the rest of the country [the United States] as well.”

Also the late pope, John Paul II stated...

“They [immigrants] often bring with them a cultural and religious heritage which is rich in Christian [read “Roman Catholic’] elements. The Church... is committed to spare no effort in developing her own pastoral strategy among these immigrant people, in order to help them settle in their new land and to foster a welcoming attitude among the local population”

There was a study released in June by the California Catholic Conference, and entitled “Planning for the Future of the California Catholic Church. In that study contained interesting stats. By 2025, Roman Catholics are expected to comprise about 36% of California’s population, compared to about 30 percent now. In 2005, 11.1 million of California’s 36.6 million were Roman Catholics. By 2025, it is expected that 16.7 million of California’s expected 45.9 million people will be Roman Catholics. This is an increase of 5.6 million Roman Catholics. Of these, 3.5 million will be the result of new births, and 2.1 million will be new immigrants. “Church” membership will grow by 129%.

The Latino portion of the increased population of California in the period 1990-2005 was 79% of all new Californian residents. Between 2005 and 2025 it is expected to amount to 81% of new residents. By 2025, 4.3 million new Roman Catholic baptisms would have occurred, over 3.1 million children will receive their “first communion” in the Roman Catholic institution, and the average parish will have expanded by over 1800 families.

“They [the immigrants]... come with the values that are so needed in the United States today.... This is a special moment in the history of the Catholic Church and the history of migration”. Roman Catholic cardinal, Theodore McCarrick, of Washington, D.C.

The Vatican Using "Forgiveness" to promote illegal immigration

A local radio host in my local area who is a devote Catholic and has conservative political viewpoints informs the listening audience that he gets slightly annoyed by visiting Priests or his local Priest in general when political issues are brought up. He just doesn't like politics mixed in with preaching he said. Mainly because he disagrees what the Priests are saying politically not doctrinally. Cast in point, a visiting Priest in a loud voice told Roman Catholics they must forgive illegal immigrants, sex abusers, and so on. Since we are focusing in on massive illegal immigration, we will leave the sex abuse scandals for another time. But in the eyes of this Priest who was at odds with this devote Catholic radio talk show host, forgiveness of illegal immigrants is allowing them to cross the US border at will which is in line with the Vatican. And it's not only him, but other Priests around the country are using "forgiveness" in the wrong sense to promote massive illegal immigration.

Mexico and The Vatican

Without question, there is also a push for expansion of Mexico which suites the Vatican just fine because Mexico has been mainly Roman Catholic for many hundreds of years.

“This is our land, and our continent, this is not property of the Europeans or their descendants. Not one inch of this continent belongs to Europeans, no matter what lies or distortions of ownership they may present.... Remember that we have only temporarily (and illegally) been deprived of the rights to our continent and our heritage. This occupation of our continent is not a permanent condition.”Olin Tezcatilpoca

It's not shocking to know that almost 60 percent of Mexicans believe they should be able to cross into the United States whenever they please. A woman on one of the most popular programs on the Fox News cable network was asked by the host, "Do you believe in the United States having the right to control it's own borders". She replied, "Back in the 1600's people were free to travel anywhere in the United States". The host looked puzzled for a moment and said with a stern voice, "I'm not asking you what happened in the past before America became a country, I mean now the present. I'm asking you again if you believe that the United States has a right to control it's own border". She then finally responded, "Yes of course, I believe the United States has that right to control their own border". If you look closely to what she said, she indeed does not believe in the United States controlling it's own border. For how can one believe that a country can control it's own border but yet believe that people have the right to travel into another country as they please.

Elvira Arellano an illegal immigrant activist who was on a mission to try and change what she and others have called; "a broken immigration policy" in the United States. She was originally caught using fraudulent credentials and deported back to Mexico only to cross the borders again illegally. In 2002, she went to a Methodist 'church' building in Chicago to seek a safe haven in order to block attempts in sending her back to Mexico once again. She tried having a kid and using the kid's health in order to argue she has to stay in the US. Finally it was revealed she was captured in August 2007, and sent back to Mexico while choosing to leave her son behind even though she could have taken him with her. The debate over massive illegal immigration began to take hold again nationally as tv and radio talk shows were talking about Miss Arellano's situation.

Before I conclude this part on Mexico and the Vatican, the issue of how the US treats illegal immigrants with their US born kids came up after the Elvira Arellano situation...When it comes to illegal immigrants filtering into Mexico from other countries, the Mexican government requires them to pay a fee in order to cross their borders into the United States. Often times the illegals who cross into Mexico are treated very badly and spit upon by Mexican authorities or Mexican civilians.

Other Forces Behind Massive Illegal Immigration

While discussing the main force behind the push for massive illegal immigration. We cannot forget about the Communists and Socialists who are also a major force behind illegal immigration. Since 9/11 and even before then, we can also include terrorist support for illegal immigration. When it comes to pushing illegal immigration, socialists love the concept and practice especially from third world countries because it enhances their power as these illegal immigrates being poor they require such needs from the government like free education, free health care, and so on.

The (Communist) Workers World Party, and the International Socialist Organization, brought printed placards and signs to the demonstration, and handed out copies of their newspapers in Spanish and English. Socialist literature was displayed on tables. The Workers World Party distributed placards with pictures of Che Guevara. They also carried placards with the words: “Workers’ Struggles Have No Borders!” True Communist propaganda: that nation-states are irrelevant, that borders should come down. Shaun Willcock (A Christian Pastor who runs Bible Based Ministries)

What about big business or businesses in general? Many would ask and argue over as the main force behind illegal immigration...Indeed this is another force behind illegal immigration, no doubt about it but it's not the main force. Many businesses who hired illegals for cheap labor has seen their profits increased more than with legal citizens. Many countries like China who have become an industrial powerhouse and take advantage of their cheap labor in their own country have made it difficult for America companies to compete for business. Thus, the illegals become more profitable for these America companies to hire. In some cases profit doesn't matter at all, we find some rich people hiring illegals to be nannies, cooks, maids, and so on even though they can afford legal citizens to do the job.

On September 11, 2001 is when the world saw illegals for the first time attack the America in a massive way as many innocent people were killed in the name of the Islamic religion. For years terrorists have been in the United States either raising money, or training or even both. Certainly terrorists promote illegal immigration as a way not only to attack other countries with their distorted beliefs for world conquest for their god, but also attack America too.

What about poverty? No one can deny, it's one of the major reasons which motivates people to come to the America. And who can blame them? After all, their country is so poor with little opportunities to have any measure of success in life. Thus, people tend to want to cross the borders to come to the US to obtain great wealth beyond their wildest dreams of what they wouldn't have obtained in their own country. Sadly, they are used by their so-called 'church', and other groups which includes socialists and communists. What cannot look a the various forces behind illegal immigration without mentioning criminal activity. Criminals who sell drugs for example, make huge profits from their criminal actions by smuggling illegal drugs into the US by various means such as underground tunnels, or various transportation. And lastly, media bias which is in step with the Vatican and all other forces or people who are in favor of illegal immigration. The liberal media in the United States and even some in other countries like the BBC have been on a re-education campaign to attempt to try and sway public opinion. In this media blitz, they use labels such as "undocumented immigrants" which in a way is misleading because many do use "documents" but it's used in a fraudulent manner or even stolen. However, there is some truth to this label. It does mean the government has no document of that person or persons who enter into the United States. So there is accurate count or estimate on how many are actually in the US from other countries who came here illegally. More than likely there are more illegals than what they are currently aware of.

Progress or Lack Thereof on Restricting Massive Illegal Immigration

Despite all the tough talk on illegal immigration since the terrorist attacks of 9/11, it's been reported that only 2 percent of those illegals captured are actually prosecuted. The rest of the illegals captured are safely returned to Mexico. The United States government has basically with the influence of the Vatican and other special interest groups have sold it's people out. On June 26, 2007 in Hazleton, Pa. A Judge ruled in a 206 page document that the "Illegal Immigration Relief Act" which punishes landlords and businesses who rent or are employing illegal immigrants by their respected business is not unconstitutional. This is not the first time a court has done this. It's a pattern of rulings by the courts around the country. So the courts want to give illegal immigrants the same rights as legal citizens in the United States. This is unheard of in any other country which would deny rights to those who cross their borders illegally...

Recently as of August 10, 2007, President Bush is trying make a push for his plan to raise the fines on employers who hire illegal immigrants as part of a broader plan said Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. Also a quicker deployment of an under staff boarder patrol. It's unknown as this time how much the fine will be for employers who break the law to hire illegals or how many more boarder patrol agents will be deployed more rapidly. This part of the plan has the farming industry worried and suggested it would put them out of business. About 75 percent of the farmer's workforce are illegals. More than one million. I believe it's around 2-5 million illegals in the farming workforce...Without no documentation it's hard to really tell how many are in the country so most estimates in the media are on the low side. The farming industry does have to worry more but if we look at the history of illegal immigration, the enforcement of laws are weak at best. The rest of the President's plan wants most of the illegals who are working to stay while sending back the head of household to their particular countries for about a year before returning again, and have to pay a 5,000 dollar fine over ten years.

In Conclusion

Before I conclude this news item lets make one thing clear...There is basically nothing wrong with legal immigration. America is a nation of immigrants who came here for a better life, adapted into the society well, and so on... In fact, the United States takes in more lawful immigrants than any other country in the world! But what we are seeing today on immigration is a emphasis on massive illegal immigration that should be considered as a war waged against the United States for religious, business, and political reasons.